Why "The Kiss" on Modern Family matters.

Wow, 2 posts in 2 days. I'm quite proud of myself.

Ok, so last night, on Modern Family the audience finally got to see Mitchell and Cameron kiss. What's the big deal? Well, let me tell you what the deal is.

You see, about 1/2 way through MF's freshman season, we gay viewers began to notice that, for a committed couple, Mitch and Cam were never affectionate with each other. Not that the 2 straight couples were banging in every scene, because this is a "family" show. But the fact that a gay couple with an adopted child is featured as main characters on a prime time network show was, dare I say, revolutionary. So for many gay viewers, this lack of physical contact bothered us.

Let's look at some examples of gay characters getting neutered:

The first show that featured two gay characters in bed together was Thirtysomething. In a 1989 episode titled Strangers, two gay men were shown, post-sex, in bed. The actors were forbidden to even touch each other, even though these characters had just made love. This episode was so controversial, that ABC lost advertisers for that particular episode. ABC even pulled the episode from being rerun.

Another example of a gay character not being able to show affection happened on...Melrose Place. Can you believe it? On the original Melrose Place, every (heterosexual) character slept with multiple people and bed-hopped like there was no tomorrow. But what about Matt, the token gay? While Matt did eventually get a few boyfriends, it was the kiss that never happened that caused a fuss. In an episode where Matt goes out on a date w/ Billy's best friend (who is unaware his friend is gay) right when Matt goes in for the kiss good night, the camera cuts away to Billy, watching from his apartment with a shocked look on his face. Originally, the kiss had been filmed, but Fox caved in to advertisers' pressure and decided not to show the kiss.

What this all boils down to is gay male sexuality being threatening to the main stream public. Have you ever heard someone say something like "I don't mind gay people, just as long as I don't have to see it"? Most people in today's society are still afraid of two men showing affection towards each other. Over the summer, I saw on Zap2It.com an article titled "Is True Blood too gay?" Then, on CNN there was an article asking "Is TV too gay?" WTF!!! Are you kidding me? It's 2010, people. On the TB article, someone posted that they "loved the show but hate the gay stuff". (Google "Is True Blood too gay?" and you'll find the article). Can you imagine if gay people stopped watching shows like Grey's Anatomy because it was too straight?

So, when a Facebook campaign popped up, calling for Mitch and Cam to kiss on MF, the creators of the show downplayed it, saying that they had an episode in mind that dealt w/ Mitch (the uptight one) and his uncomfortableness with PDA's. I don't think that was the case. I believe the creators tried to ease into displays of affection because of the mainstream appeal of the show. For people to care about these characters, the public has to like them. And for the public to like them, they have to be non-threatening. And because affection between gay men is threatening, it's easier for the public to accept the characters if they know them and like them, which is what the first season of the show was able to accomplish.

It stands to reason that, by easing the mainstream public into caring about these characters, that eventually they'll understand that gay couples are just like straight couples. And like straight couples, gay couples show affection towards each other. What the creators of the show could have done is just start showing Mitch and Cam being affectionate and not addressed the issue at all. But by addressing the topic head on, hopefully it opened peoples eyes. If mainstream America can welcome this gay couple into their homes every week, then maybe people will be more accepting of gay couples in real life.

Why the "Britney" episode of Glee sucked

Ok, so it's been awhile since I've blogged. Andy has teased me about the fact that I don't post as often as I should. So, I decided to rant about the latest Glee episode.

Let me start off by saying, I'm not a Britney fan. Seriously, she's awful. Ok, so I like "Womanizer", but that's about it. And it's not just her music that I don't like, I don't like her either. I don't think she can sing (which is why she lip-syncs all the time) and while she's not a big 'ole mess like she used to be (i.e., the K-Fed years) she's just annoying.

But, this isn't a rant about Ms. Spears. This is a rant about Glee. To be honest, I was actually looking forward to seeing this episode. Mr. Murphy and the Glee cast did a great job w/ the Madonna episode, so I thought they would be able to pull it off.

Sadly, they did not.I felt like the entire episode was an entire waste of time, disguised as a tribute.

Joss Whedon, the creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, when being asked about the famous musical episode of BtVS, said the reason people break out into song in musicals is to propel the story forward. Sure, he could have done a musical episode anytime during the seven yeas BtVS was on the air, but he didn't want to do it until the time was right. The songs and the storyline for "Once More With Feeling" fit the idea of a "musical". That is where Glee failed miserably.

The songs featured in "Britney/Brittnay" (how original a title) really did nothing to move any storyline along or address any issues. The Madonna episode "The Power of Madonna" used the idea of Madonna and her songs to deal w/ issues of misogyny, feminism and of course, sex. At least 4 of the songs were relevant to the story lines addressed in that episode.

Now, because this is Glee, I know that there are some songs that are sung just because they're fun songs. But, in the "B/B" episode, most of the songs and images used were pretty much just recreations of Britney Spears videos. Much like Jane Lynch's rendition of "Vogue", Heather Morris' rendition of "Slave 4 U" was awesome. But did we really need to see "Hit Me Baby" and "Me Against the Music"? And in the entire Britney catalog, couldn't Ryan Murphy choose songs that fit into the story lines being dealt with? Arnie's cover of "Stronger" was probably the only relevant title that worked. And "Toxic" was Glee-ified, which I thought they did a good job. But, let's not forget to point out that the final song wasn't even a Britney song. (It was a Paramore song).

Other non-Britney related issues:

1. The creepy Jewish kid: I know in the Glee universe, the viewers are supposed to suspend disbelief because, let's face it, this is a musical world where kids break into song. But, this guy is caught by Sue, masturbating in school. The guy would be expelled, end of story. But then he's at the assembly, practically cumming during the "Toxic" number. And the fat girl, opening creaming her panties over Will. Seriously annoying. Those two characters should be excised from the rest of the series, period. These characters are not funny. They're disturbing and offensive.

2. Sue Sylvester has gone from funny bad guy to a parody of her former self. This character has always pushed the envelope in terms of someone you love to hate. But now, she is so over the top there's probably no coming back. Her role in the "B/B" episode was a caricature of what the role should be.

Ok, so there is my Glee-centric rant/blog. I will still watch Glee (I am looking forward to their Rocky Horror episode), but my patience is wearing thin. And, should I give up on the show completely, you know I'll be blogging about it.